LMMA Review - Kawaka et al. 2015 Final 10Jul.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

force. At the time Kuruwitu explored the Environment Management and Coordination Act (EMCA, 1999), through sections 54 and 55 which provide for the declaration of an area as a protected area including in the marine environment. However, for this legislation to apply to LMMAs, it would require that the communities liaise with the Minister before the declaration is undertaken or that regulations be developed under Section 55(6) which would provide clear procedures for community involvement in establishment of LMMAs, to ensure the conserved area is community-led and not government-led (Odote et al. 2015). This approach proved difficult and was never concluded and instead KCWA members had to join the BMU to gain legal recognition by SDF. 3.3 Implementation By this third phase more stakeholders were informed about LMMAs. However, there was still some skepticism about establishment. Area closures and gear restriction were generally adopted as management approaches. Activities carried out during this phase were participatory resource mapping, demarcation, placement of buoys and baseline surveys on biophysical and socio-economics status. BMUs with draft management plans (Kuruwitu, Vanga, Kibuyuni, Mradi and Nyari-Kikadini, Wasini) had these adopted during this phase. Challenges during this phase revolved around limited training in LMMA management and leadership, lack of management structures, lack of access to land, poor marketing and inadequate funding (Table 4). These are discussed further below. Marketing None of the LMMAs had a structured marketing strategy except for Kuruwitu. However, some had plans to work with relevant institutions on marketing their LMMAs and tourism related products. Vanga planned to market itself as an historical site to raise the profile of the area and increase its visibility to a national and international audience. Wasini planned to set a website to showcase its marine resources and unique attractions. BMUs affiliated to Kiweni worked in collaboration with Lamu and Shela BMUs which are tourist centres which played a key role in bringing tourists to the LMMA. Plans are underway by TNC and partners to introduce a business approach to marine conservation areas that would see critical habitats identified and more LMMAs established in Pate Island given that Kiweni faces an uncertain future due to the LAPSSET project. Kuruwitu had a marketing strategy in its original master and management plan consisting of production of brochures, signboard, t-shirts, an educational video, website, articles and newsletters. Availability of funds Funding was a major challenge facing all LMMAs and no financial plan was found with any of the LMMAs. Activities were in high gear when funding was available but dropped off dramatically when funding ceased. For instance, between 2009-2012 during FFI/EAWLS’ Darwin Initiative project, which aimed to promote conservation of biodiversity and reduce poverty, most of the Shimoni to Vanga LMMAs were established, and co-management plans, biophysical and socio-economic surveys were completed rapidly presumably to complete activities within the lifespan of the project and/or due to availability of funds and expertise. The same applied for Kuruwitu between 2008-2010 when there was funding from the Community Development Trust Fund. There were exceptions: Kanamai-Mradi received minimal external support compared to other LMMAs but went on with activities equally successfully, raising revenue from visitor entry, BMU fish landing charges and membership fees. Nyari-Kikadini began raising revenue from visitor entry fees. However, the LMMA stalled following internal wrangles with neighbouring BMUs concerning the site. Kiweni 16
aised some revenue by charging access to snorkelers who visited the reef. This was done through collaboration of five BMUs and hotel operators notably Manda Bay Resort and Peponi Hotel. However, lack of ongoing donor support, lack of monitoring, and infighting between the key community groups led the LMMA to collapse. Availability of land Land ownership or lack of access to land appeared to hinder LMMA activities. For example, Jimbo, Kanamai-Mradi, Kuruwitu and Wasini BMU owned no land and have minimal beach access. Wasini BMU overcame this problem by operating in harmony with existing neighbouring investors whom they encouraged to provide land access to support the LMMA. Kuruwitu was offered land by the local administration to construct an office. They later maximised use of their beach access, constructing a locally made office and resting sheds and installing sanitation facilities. Plans are underway to construct a temporary eatery and a marine resource training center. Training in LMMA management Training to improve LMMA management skills was carried out at several LMMAs but there was usually little coordination between government and NGOs and among the various NGOs. BMU leaders have attended training on LMMA related issues (by-laws, leadership, group and financial management, monitoring), which were carried out by SDF, KWS and civil society organisations. Systems to strengthen governance and capacity of LMMA, managers, boards, and a fisheries data collection programme are currently being established in Pate Island. Some BMU leaders raised concern over selection of individuals for training opportunities. They argued that those targeted were mostly BMU leaders, which was potentially counterproductive to respective LMMAs. They proposed that BMU training should target officials and non-officials to avoid a vacuum being formed when leaders who have been trained relinquish their positions. 3.4 Monitoring and management This fourth phase marked the beginning of managing a LMMA once it is in operation. Four LMMAs had been through this phase (Kuruwitu, Wasini, Kibuyuni, Kanamai-Mradi) and in these management structures were established and were generally contained within the BMU management structure, for example, in the BMU committee and sub-committees, depending on the number of activities. The phase was marked by attempts to implement a monitoring plan, though this was often not yet well developed, and the maintenance of the marker buoys. The latter was only observed at Kuruwitu where the environment subcommittee implemented the monitoring plan. Similar challenges to those seen in Phase 3 were observed in this phase: inadequate funds, limited training in LMMA management, and lack of a monitoring plan. The latter is discussed further below. Monitoring plans and patrol activities Monitoring strategies were evident in three areas (a) Patrolling for compliance of the LMMA regulations; (b) Biophysical monitoring of the environment; and (c) Socio-economic monitoring to measure impacts on the environment and the local people respectively. Kuruwitu, Wasini, Kanamai-Mradi and Kibuyuni had on-going collaborative patrol activities with research institutions. Shimoni and Jimbo reported a one off patrol carried out in early 2013 by SDF officers. Regular surveillance and patrol activities at Kiweni LMMA were evident but this only lasted when there was external support from donors and hoteliers who also benefited from the conservation actions. At Pate Island there is now an initiative to 17
Page 1 and 2: Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs
Page 3 and 4: Acknowledgements We would like to t
Page 5 and 6: Acronyms ANO BMU CoMMs COMRED CORDI
Page 7 and 8: Executive Summary Coastal communiti
Page 9 and 10: The current fisheries co-management
Page 11 and 12: PHASE 3 - IMPLEMENTATION Was the LM
Page 13 and 14: esearch (biophysical, socio-economi
Page 15 and 16: Table 2: A list of 24 Kenyan LMMAs
Page 17 and 18: knowledge on protection of marine r
Page 19: 3.2 Inception The process of establ
Page 23 and 24: 4. Discussion and recommendations F
Page 25 and 26: 6. LMMAs should develop a comprehen
Page 27 and 28: Maina, GW, Osuka, K and Samoilys MA

LMMA Review - Kawaka et al. 2015 Final 10Jul.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?